World of Darkness Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 from Hardsuit Labs

[EvilWolf]

Media in 2023 struggles to tell even the most simple, coherent story - much less an interactive one with many moving parts. It probably says something about the quality of the creatives that western culture has cultivated over the past 2-3 decades.

The fact that these products consistently tank suggests that audiences aren't interested. The mystifying part is not that there are incompetent creatives, that's always been a thing. Fanfiction and amateur publishing just made it obvious. The mystifying part is why the companies providing the funding have suddenly relaxed their quality standards to such low degrees. While said companies have a nasty habit of canceling great shows, they also act a quality filter to prevent really atrocious stuff from getting through. Why is the filter suddenly not working? The CW has been around for years without making profit or receiving donations.

The issue goes beyond simple economics. The funneling of money into these projects has nothing to do with making a profit, it's about sending a message.

 

[Harthwain]

The funneling of money into these projects has nothing to do with making a profit, it's about sending a message.

I am not so sure. What I see is the disconnect between the payer and the maker. The payer wants a game that brings in profit (or at least is not a loss), while the maker wants to make whatever he wants. The reason why Bloodline 2 flopped before it was even out is solely because in this particular case the studio utterly failed to deliver. If it were all about the message, then Paradox would've simply rolled with whatever shit Hardsuit Labs had and released it.

 

[EvilWolf]

The payer wants a game that brings in profit (or at least is not a loss),

What videogame industry are you talking about?

 

[Harthwain]

What videogame industry are you talking about?

THE video game industry, obviously. The theory that video games are made for an idea and not to make money is simply outlandish.

Look at EA, Ubisoft, CD Projekt or even Paradox. When Hearts of Iron IV was discussed (mainly in how streamlined it was) the lead developer said something along the lines of "If we want to keep making games, then we need to reach as many players as possible so we can afford to keep making games and not end up on the streets". This is business first and foremost. And that means profit.

Stupid "inclusive" bullshit is mainly PR people or suits, who have no idea what's going on, giving green light to some devs high on crack, because they think it'll mean their game will appear as "progressive" and "progressive" means good PR in their book. But you don't really have to give a shit about that, as long as your game is solid. Hell, you can even afford to be "controversive".

 

[EvilWolf]

What videogame industry are you talking about?

THE video game industry, obviously. The theory that video games are made for an idea and not to make money is simply outlandish.

Look at EA, Ubisoft, CD Projekt or even Paradox. When Hearts of Iron IV was discussed (mainly in how streamlined it was) the lead developer said something along the lines of "If we want to keep making games, then we need to reach as many players as possible so we can afford to keep making games and not end up on the streets". This is business first and foremost. And that means profit.

Stupid "inclusive" bullshit is mainly PR people or suits, who have no idea what's going on, giving green light to some devs high on crack, because they think it'll mean their game will appear as "progressive" and "progressive" means good PR in their book. But you don't really have to give a shit about that, as long as your game is solid. Hell, you can even afford to be "controversive".

There are only so many examples of this blowing up in the dev/publishers face and the process being repeated ad nauseum for it to be simple tone deafness. They know damn well what they're doing, repeating the same spiel over and over again until people accept it as quality. It's the equivilent of someone with more money than they know what to do with opening a burger joint next to McDonalds and chasing them out of business by selling home made burgers and fries for 1 cent.

 

[Harthwain]

There are only so many examples of this blowing up in the dev/publishers face and the process being repeated ad nauseum for it to be simple tone deafness. They know damn well what they're doing [...]

I wouldn't underestimate human stupidity. I mean, Paradox should've known better - considering they know how to make games - but even they got so big they lost touch and only started paying attention when it was actually too late salvage the original project (and they had to scrape it, and give it to another developer. With more oversight this time).

It's the equivilent of someone with more money than they know what to do with opening a burger joint next to McDonalds and chasing them out of business by selling home made burgers and fries for 1 cent.

Not really. You can see that in case of Paradox and CD Projekt. They don't have that much money to don't care about them. And companies such as Ubisoft or EA also have shareholders who want to see profits, not just "reapeat some spiel" and lose money instead of getting even richer.

 

[EvilWolf]

There are only so many examples of this blowing up in the dev/publishers face and the process being repeated ad nauseum for it to be simple tone deafness. They know damn well what they're doing [...]

I wouldn't underestimate human stupidity. I mean, Paradox should've known better - considering they know how to make games - but even they got so big they lost touch and only started paying attention when it was actually too late salvage the original project (and they had to scrape it, and give it to another developer. With more oversight this time).

It's the equivilent of someone with more money than they know what to do with opening a burger joint next to McDonalds and chasing them out of business by selling home made burgers and fries for 1 cent.

Not really. You can see that in case of Paradox and CD Projekt. They don't have that much money to don't care about them. And companies such as Ubisoft or EA also have shareholders who want to see profits, not just "reapeat some spiel" and lose money instead of getting even richer.

What do you think CDPR has to do in exchange for all that ESG money?

 

[Tyranicon]

You have to care at least a little about money to succeed (by most metrics) in the video game industry. People who are 100% in it for the art will either be used by less naive industry folk, or fail to gain much headway in an industry that is driven by marketing, graphics and cool shit™.

Lots of indies (including me) would be happy if they make enough money to keep the lights on and continue working on gamedev. The fact that achieving this is considered a near-insurmountable goal is evidence of two things:

1. Most indies are pretty shit at running a business

and/or

2. Selling games is really fucking hard

 

[Delterius]

i don't perceive the bloodlines 2 fiasco as a 'grew too big and lost touch' problem. it was real amateur hour. it wasn't the only time paradox lost money in a dumb way either. it's sad but 'no name studio without much experience' is a red flag. a couple of writers shouldn't have turned that flag green. no matter how many mitsodas or professional kickstarter rewards you got pitching you stuff.

paradox could have lobbied the poles to make them a game. it might have been bad but the anime would have been good.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

People who are 100% in it for the art will either be used by less naive industry folk, or fail to gain much headway in an industry that is driven by marketing, graphics and cool shit™.

Again you don't understand the things you're saying. Art is a concept that doesn't exist without humans. And as such, if something is not appreciated by humans, it's not art. A thing that is only appreciated by its creator is a turd in the toilet.
So art does pay.
Graphics and cool shit make up art, among other things. It's just that to be art, it has to also touch people deeply and it has to instill and inspire with the bright and eternal.
You have perhaps bought into the idea that an abstract painting is somehow "100% art", because the "connoisseurs" say so. It's nothing more than money laundering schemes.
Games need to be pretty and cool to be art. And people who are in it for the art will do just fine.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

it might have been bad but the anime would have been good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Blood_Brothers

 

[The President]

You have to care at least a little about money to succeed (by most metrics) in the video game industry. People who are 100% in it for the art will either be used by less naive industry folk, or fail to gain much headway in an industry that is driven by marketing, graphics and cool shit™.

Lots of indies (including me) would be happy if they make enough money to keep the lights on and continue working on gamedev. The fact that achieving this is considered a near-insurmountable goal is evidence of two thing

You have to care a lot about money to succeed or survive in any industry, not just games. There are no enterprises or anything else that can last with no money.

I'll say this for the industry, if you can code or do anything else of technical value, you may not have money falling out of your ass but you won't starve.

i don't perceive the bloodlines 2 fiasco as a 'grew too big and lost touch' problem. it was real amateur hour. it wasn't the only time paradox lost money in a dumb way either. it's sad but 'no name studio without much experience' is a red flag. a couple of writers shouldn't have turned that flag green. no matter how many mitsodas or professional kickstarter rewards you got pitching you stuff.

paradox could have lobbied the poles to make them a game. it might have been bad but the anime would have been good.

From what I've been told the amateur hour explanation is what ultimately happened. I mean individuals fuck up and it's the same for companies and businesses. This game's dirty laundry got aired quite a bit more publicly than some of the fuck ups I've personally seen, but this doesn't mean there's some greater reason like the industry lost touch or something. Sometimes shit just happens.

 

[Tyranicon]

People who are 100% in it for the art will either be used by less naive industry folk, or fail to gain much headway in an industry that is driven by marketing, graphics and cool shit™.

Again you don't understand the things you're saying. Art is a concept that doesn't exist without humans. And as such, if something is not appreciated by humans, it's not art. A thing that is only appreciated by its creator is a turd in the toilet.
So art does pay.

You are equating the success of art with popularity. I can't disagree more.

The success of art depends on the goals of the artist. Unfortunately (and probably in most cases) the goals of the artist are in direct opposition to financial gain.

You have to care a lot about money to succeed or survive in any industry, not just games. There are no enterprises or anything else that can last with no money.

I'll say this for the industry, if you can code or do anything else of technical value, you may not have money falling out of your ass but you won't starve.

I suppose that is the key word: enterprise. Indies that want to be successful should consider themselves as a business first, everything else second.

It's a weird dilemma because a lot of gamedevs are not good businessmen, or perhaps even ideologically opposed to the notion.

It's a slippery slope too: the more you compromise in the name of good business, the more you stray from what you actually want to do.

Making games is a horrible way to make money. Nobody should be in gamedev for the money, and people who think they have a get-rich-quick scheme are either retarded or scammers.

If you have technical skills, go work in fin-tech or some other high-paying industry before AI ruins it all.

 

[Hammer Of The Heretics]

If I'm creating something with zero concern for whether other people find it of value, that isn't a business - it's a hobby. Once you're in business you're creating values for exchange and that means keeping an eye on what other people value, not just yourself. Does that mean you should compromise your vision of what makes your product valuable? No... but it does mean that if you don't think enough other people *will* find your envisioned product valuable then you shouldn't try to turn it into a business in the first place.

The kernel of truth is that there is a tension between holding to your vision and making more money, and many people do sell out the former in the name of the latter. The problem is that after you do so, what's the point of the money? You've thrown out the thing that made you passionate about your business in the first place, and what do you want the money for if not to help you achieve your own values on a larger scale? The people who ditch their vision in the name of getting more money wind up soulless, unmotivated hacks, and eventually they lose the ability to make money as well. (And don't we have a plethora of those people in the industry today?)

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

The kernel of truth is that there is a tension between holding to your vision and making more money

A bunch of nonsense. But let's pretend it's true. I'm making an indie RPG. Tell me how to compromise my vision and make more money, I'll do it. Do I put LGBTQ+ and trannies into my game? It won't make me more money, ESG won't take notice of me. I'll wait and give you chance to tell me how to make more money.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

You are equating the success of art with popularity. I can't disagree more.

The success of art depends on the goals of the artist.

You don't understand the definition of art. You think some "auteur" squeezing one out in his ivory tower is an "artist". Who would've thought that a guy who makes insipid low quality shit has complexes of inferiority towards charlatans and hacks who don't even attempt that in the first place and pretend that "they had different goals". Realize this: even you're better than them.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Video games are first and foremost a commodity, not an art form. And art itself once commodified has profit and not artistry as its goal.

...Which isn't to say that those two can't overlap, but it's the exception rather than the rule (e.g. an artistic commission for someone with good taste will probably have more artistry than that of some nouveau riche who ends up demanding kitsch from a craftsman).

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Video games are first and foremost a commodity, not an art form. And art itself once commodified has profit and not artistry as its goal.

Any art has to be valued by society to be art (as explained previously), and as such it will have a price, and will therefore always be a commodity.
The term "commodification" can applied to things that are normally considered unsellable for some reasons (e.g. morality), but then become sellable, like a commodified intimacy. Commodified art? All art is a commodity.

 

[Nano]

there's nothing more immersive than urban fantasy games being cursed IRL



depression is the genre's motiff

Fun fact that a lot of these Bloodlines OST songs were originally recorded with vocals for Rik Schaffer's old albums.

All That Could Ever Be was We Just Disagree.
Poinsettia was As Lonely As I Am.
Selfless Doubt was Selfless Doubt.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Any art has to be valued by society to be art (as explained previously)

That depends on how you define art. A sculpture buried in the desert can still be factually described as a work of art even if there's no one aware of its existence as to acknowledge it as such (or to make a more hyperbolic example, even if humanity in its entirety disappeared tomorrow hence there being no possible human subject to ascertain its nature or to benefit from its existence). What constitutes a work of art is a tangible thing (a.i. a material good of a particular type brought about through human intervention), it's how we judge the artistry of individual works within the broader category of artistic goods which is iffier to define.

Commodified art? All art is a commodity.

If there's no exchange, there's no commodity. If I paint some picture (or design some indie game) either for my personal enjoyment and/or that of others provided free of charge, then that's a good yet not a commodity (which is not to say that you can't come up with a hypothetical exchange value for it, but that doesn't impact the nature of the good unless I do decide to offer it up for sale hence commodifying it in the process).

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

If there's no exchange, there's no commodity. If I paint some picture (or design some indie game) either for my personal enjoyment and/or that of others provided free of charge, then that's a good yet not a commodity (which is not to say that you can't come up with a hypothetical exchange value for it, but that doesn't impact the nature of the good unless I do decide to offer it up for sale hence commodifying it in the process).

You're right, it'd be more precise to say all art can become a commodity at the first whim of its owner. The owner is a separate subject. Therefore the mere fact of becoming or not becoming a commodity doesn't influence the art's properties in any way.
Your error is visible here:

And art itself once commodified has profit and not artistry as its goal.

The goal exists before and during the creation process. Your so-called commodification can occur or not occur after the creation process, independently of what the goal was. Therefore, it cannot modify the goal after the fact.
An easy example: The Night Watch by Rembrandt was commissioned by a militia captain. What was the author's goal? It was probably to create art and make money in the process. It was sold as soon as it was completed. It's considered art now.

A sculpture buried in the desert can still be factually described as a work of art even if there's no one aware of its existence as to acknowledge it as such

And if you're describing the buried sculpture, you're aware of its existence.
Just like commodity is a transient property of an object that is being sold, art is a property of an object that has been observed by humans and deemed art. Before observing it, we can't know if it will or will not be art.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

If there's no exchange, there's no commodity. If I paint some picture (or design some indie game) either for my personal enjoyment and/or that of others provided free of charge, then that's a good yet not a commodity (which is not to say that you can't come up with a hypothetical exchange value for it, but that doesn't impact the nature of the good unless I do decide to offer it up for sale hence commodifying it in the process).

You're right, it'd be more precise to say all art can become a commodity at the first whim of its owner. The owner is a separate subject. Therefore the mere fact of becoming or not becoming a commodity doesn't influence the art's properties in any way.
Your error is visible here:

And art itself once commodified has profit and not artistry as its goal.

The goal exists before and during the creation process. Your so-called commodification can occur or not occur after the creation process, independently of what the goal was. Therefore, it cannot modify the goal after the fact.
An easy example: The Night Watch by Rembrandt was commissioned by a militia captain. What was the author's goal? It was probably to create art and make money in the process. It was sold as soon as it was completed. It's considered art now.

Artistry is an emergent property of the good. Whether one intends to make a work of art for the purpose of selling it or not, its artistry is distinct from that goal (but can be influenced by it, such as by the artist intentionally picking an inferior theme or message in order to appeal to a potential customer base or by underutilizing his skills in producing said good which lessens its artistry for the purposes of greater profits for the amount of labor and resources involved).

Just like commodity is a transient property of an object that is being sold, art is a property of an object that has been observed by humans and deemed art. Before observing it, we can't know if it will or will not be art.

I disagree. A piece of art is a concrete type of good brought about through human labor for a specific purpose (hence 'art' being a functional definition, although how we define its function is up for debate; e.g. emotional and/or broader intellectual stimulation which includes the common 'art is supposed to be beautiful' view, prosocial impact as upheld by those who believe that art is supposed to have a didactic or broadly moralist function or what have you). It exists as such regardless of whether there's someone to acknowledge its character or to ascertain its quality, just as a watch is a watch regardless of acknowledgement (or awareness, someone not knowing what a watch is doesn't make the object any less of a watch if it comes into his possession; and on the opposite end, someone stumbling upon a natural object and mistaking it for art due to its appearance like in the case of some rock whose outward intricacy and symmetry came about through happenstance and natural erosion does not make it art).

 

[RaggleFraggle]

The underlying problem is that you cannot make art without honest motives, and “make income or die” is not a motivation. It is basic survival.

Not that I’m advocating communism. “Work in a gulag or be executed” is no improvement.

Even the guillotine doesn’t work. The rich end up back in power within a few decades.

We need a system of government and economics that allows everyone to live in luxury and pursue their hobbies, while preventing the infinitely corrupt ruling class from turning civilization into a hellhole for everyone else.

It’s like humans are just fundamentally unworkable as a species. We have all these contradictory desires that are impossible to reconcile.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

I disagree. A piece of art is a concrete type of good brought about through human labor for a specific purpose (hence 'art' being a functional definition, although how we define its function is up for debate; e.g. emotional and/or broader intellectual stimulation which includes the common 'art is supposed to be beautiful' view, prosocial impact as upheld by those who believe that art is supposed to have a didactic or broadly moralist function or what have you). It exists as such regardless of whether there's someone to acknowledge its character or to ascertain its quality, just as a watch is a watch regardless of acknowledgement (or awareness, someone not knowing what a watch is doesn't make the object any less of a watch if it comes into his possession; and on the opposite end, someone stumbling upon a natural object and mistaking it for art due to its appearance like in the case of some rock whose outward intricacy and symmetry came about through happenstance and natural erosion does not make it art).

I want to give you a little advice. The purpose of parentheses is to to make a small clarification in case the original thought isn't clear enough, or a little off-topic remark. In a well-written text, the parentheses and their content can be removed, and the text wouldn't suffer from it. While reading, I usually skip over parentheses and their content. But you're not using them right. You can't have 70% of your post inside parentheses. To unlearn this bad habit, I'd recommend to stop using them altogether for a while. It'll force you to increase the readability and clarity of your texts.

(but can be influenced by it, such as by the artist intentionally picking an inferior theme or message in order to appeal to a potential customer base or by underutilizing his skills in producing said good which lessens its artistry for the purposes of greater profits for the amount of labor and resources involved).

You assume that something "less" artistic would sell better. It's the opposite. It's the art that is sought after the most.

When crafting a piece of art, an artist employs a combination of technical skill, original ideas, experience, knowledge, and effort. While all these elements are essential, they are not sufficient by themselves. Art truly becomes art when an intangible element emerges. For a creation to come alive, a miraculous transformation must occur, as illustrated in the legend of Pygmalion and his animated creation, Galatea. Cézanne also attempted to convey this concept when he mentioned that the most challenging aspect of a painting is capturing "a small feeling." This "little sensation" is the very essence of the artwork's soul. The soul is what elevates a piece beyond the sum of the artist's investment. If a painting fails to come alive or Galatea doesn't speak, the artist's efforts have been futile, and the work falls short of being art.

It sounds like you want to say that Marvel's Spider-Man could've been a work of art, if only it wasn't directed at the masses or had a better theme, somehow? Spider-Man doesn't have a foundation to be anything, but an entertainment product.
You don't dumb-down art for it to sell more. You dumb down entertainment products. Art is nowhere near.
And everyone tries to make art. They just can't.

It exists as such regardless of whether there's someone to acknowledge its character or to ascertain its quality, just as a watch is a watch regardless of acknowledgement

A funny meme is not a funny meme when there is no conscious thought in the entire universe to decipher its meaning. It exists only within the context of human thought.
Art is an encrypted message, and the decryption key is the human mind. If you encrypt a message and throw away the key, and it's physically impossible to extract the message, then there is no message anymore, it's been destroyed.

 

[Harthwain]

i don't perceive the bloodlines 2 fiasco as a 'grew too big and lost touch' problem. it was real amateur hour.

Paradox turned from an indie developer into a publisher and failed to pay proper attention to Bloodlines 2's development, despite it not being their first rodeo.